The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« NAFTA-gate: Part Two | Main | Halliburton/KBR: Getting us Taxpayers Coming and Going »

March 06, 2008



I'm sorry, where in that letter did Plouffe call on Hillary Clinton to drop out? He didn't. They clearly doesn't LIKE her staying in, and doesn't hide that, but he even says "that's her decision", which it of course is. He doesn't even say "we feel she should drop out" or anything to that effect.

You're right that there are unpledged delegates, and they could swing heavily toward Clinton. But after Tuesday's very narrow Clinton victory, the overall Clinton strategy appears to hinge on the hope that the PLEOs swing very heavily to Clinton (more than they already do) and overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates. Barring a major scandal, Hillary is simply not going to catch Obama in pledged delegates, and the Obama camp has every right to point this out.

Meanwhile, Hillary appears to have moved very close to running what will likely be John McCain's fall strategy - i.e. scare people about the all the bad stuff in the world, and claim the voters should vote for the older candidate with more foreign policy experience. Assuming she wins the nomination, this puts her in a difficult position for the fall: "forget about all that experience stuff people - we really want change". I'm not claiming this is duplicitous, but it means she's going to have to change message drastically if she wins in the fall, which does not bode well.

The only real issue in this message that you've pointed out is the campaign finance issue. Whether Obama's campaign is utterly clean or not, they do have a point there. If you read carefully, they said the CAMPAIGN hasn't taken any lobbyist money. That, I think, is true. I believe his presidential campaign has been fully funded through individual donors. Political speak, but true.

I'm not sure what "new politics" Obama is supposed to represent, but I'm not offended by this letter.

D. Cupples


I knew I'd hear from you on this. How are ya?

What I said: "Today, I received a mass email from campaign manager David Plouffe, which strongly implies that Hillary should drop out -- even after she won Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island."

That letter does just that. I'm NOT offended by it, though.

The reason I commented focused on the email is that another Obama supporter brought up (commenting on a dif post) that Obama's supporters may be calling for Hillary to get out, but he and his campaign officials aren't.

You're right: strong implications aren't the exact same as saying "Hillary, please get out." But the message in Plouffe's letter is pretty clear.

As for pledged delegates: we agree. Hillary likely won't catch up. Here's what I put in the other post:

"Obama seems to want the unpledged delegates to simply vote the same way that the majority of the pledged delegates nationwide did (i.e., vote for him) -- even if it's a small majority -- and without regard for how their state's voters actually voted.

"Clinton seems to want the un-pledged delegates to vote the same way that the majority in the delegates' states voted (i.e., vote for her); in that case, she would take a big chunk just from her wins in California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Ohio.

"BOTH HAVE VALID POINTS of view. Whichever way the un-pledged delegates go, massive rancor could erupt within a big segment of the Democratic party."

As for "new" politics: it IS important. Starting in January, Obama has run on a plank of changing how things are done in Washington (i.e., new politics.)

He has -- by implied comparison -- represented himself as being above the fray AND cleaner than Hillary. That's easy to do when one is winning and the media is nice to one.

What we're finding is that as the situation gets less comfy for Obama's campaign, he is lowering himself into the same gutter that he implicitly accused Hillary of occupying.

Anyway, I just hope that the "Dream Ticket" will happen.

I hope you don't think that I've been TRYING to (falsely) hold myself out as neutral. I like Hillary better. Period.

That doesn't mean that I don't see some good things about Obama or things I don't like about Hillary.

I've worked on too many campaigns to believe that ANY candidate is anywhere near perfect (by my definition, I mean). That and as a lawyer, I have a somewhat analytical (and cynical) streak.


I have no problem at all with anything you wrote there, and I don't feel you've been misrepresenting yourself in any way.

It's pretty likely that things will be close enough that both candidates will be able to make an argument (based on votes, or pledged delegates, or votes in battleground states, or whatever other measure served their purpose) that they deserve the support of the PLEOs. No matter who wins, the other camp will have an argument. Nevertheless, the popular media story will be a lot more critical of a PLEO-driven Hillary win than a pledged delegate Obama win. That's just how it will go. That doesn't mean it's right, but it's how it will go.

I think a Hillary/Obama "dream ticket" is quite possible, even likely, if Hillary wins. Strategically, it's the right move for her. An Obama/Hillary ticket makes less sense, strategically, for Obama. This is part of the reason we are starting to hear diverging opinions from the opposing camps on the "dream ticket". (The other reason is that Clinton probably feels that a lot of undecided Democrats will be more willing to go with Clinton if they think they get Obama too.)

Sorry, I really didn't know what you meant by "new politics". Broadly speaking, whether or not Obama's campaign attacks Clinton and/or pressures her to drop out of the race, has very little to do with Obama's themes of bipartisan action and ethics reforms.

Although Obama's support has clearly been eroded by the Clinton attack ads, I think his best strategy is still to take the high road. Firing back agressively at Clinton isn't likely to get her out of the race faster, and he's going to take a pledged delegate lead to Denver either way. I've got Obama winning Mississippi, Wyoming, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, while Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Even if Clinton wins re-votes in Michigan and Florida, it's pretty much a wash. Obama should act like the front-runner and avoid focussing on negative attacks on Hillary.


I'm not convinced there's room for criticism anywhere. Campaigning always gets nastier as the stakes get higher and BOTH sides are guilty. Does it disqualify the offender? Does is more-qualify the offendee?

If the supporters of both sides keep sniping at one another we'll create a gulf so deep and filled with vile that when the one nominee is determined it will take precious time to build a bridge over that gulf.

This is time wasted that otherwise must be spent galvanizing the Democratic Party, its base and the millions of Independents (and a whole bunch of Republicans) who are hoping (yes, I used the H-word!), praying and working for a Democrat to become president in November.

That wasted time and continued in-fighting is precisely what the Resmuglicans enjoy seeing: Democrats forgetting who their TRUE opponent is and instead figting with each other.

I won't be a part of that. I will work with the goal in mind that the MOST IMPORTANT THING is to guarantee a Democrat-either Democrat-gets elected as the next President of the United States.


Really interesting report today comparing McCain vs. Clinton to McCain v. Obama:

Ignoring states that are the same in both matchups, Clinton wins Florida, Arkansas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New Jersey, while Obama wins Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and some of proportinal Nebraska. Both beat McCain; Obama gets 280 to Clinton's 276.

D. Cupples


I saw that report yesterday and the two maps. The limitations on that report are very real (not just with respect to Obama's doing better than Hillary in November but also re: O and H doing better than McCain).

Again, it really depends on whether a significant number of Obama's OR Hillary's supporters end up feeling cheated based on how the nominee is picked.

That and what sort of things come out about McCain and the ultimate Dem nominee between June and November.

Lastly, I suspect that McCain will soon start campaigning with an aim at getting libs and moderates.


Oh sure, it's all vastly speculative at this point. We've got a couple hundred news cycles to go through before November. The final results are meaningless, but it's interesting to see where Obama and Clinton's relative support versus McCain is different.

Unless things get really really ugly (and admittedly, they are now starting to head that way) a victorious Clinton will be able to placate the Obamaphiles by putting him on the ticket. It will be trickier for Obama since he's less likely to put Clinton on the ticket, but in the end most Clinton supporters (who are largely rank and file democrats) would recognize how much closer they are on policy to Obama than McCain.

McCain will determine a lot with his VP selection. If he tabs Lieberman it makes things extremely interesting. I don't think any other likely choices (Charlie Crist is the choice du jour) drastically alter the landscape. A Huckabee-ish choice flatlines the chance that social liberals like me would vote for McCain.

Janet Reno

Obama’s efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten’s of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin “Tony” Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges — Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --


"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It’s time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!


Many Hillary supporter are, without a doubt, supporting Obama. I read an article by one Hillary support, Pam Jackson, on about why she plans to support Obama. She makes some good points.


Many Hillary supporter are, without a doubt, supporting Obama. I read an article by one Hillary support, Pam Jackson, on about why she plans to support Obama. She makes some good points.



Me, I haven't yet decided what I'll do in November. I have 5 months to ponder.

I suspect that many Hillary supporters will support Obama, but that doesn't mean that he's out of the woods. Hillary has roughly 18 million supporters.

Even if only 10% of them oppose Obama, that would be 1.8 million. That's almost 4 times more votes than Gore won by in 2000 (popular vote).

My problem with Obama ISN'T that he's not Hillary. As a blogger and policy wonk and lawyer, I've looked into some issues during this race.

My problems with Obama are that 1) he has misled voters about some of his stances (like lobbyists' dollars), 2) he hasn't really shown us who he is, and 3) he doesn't have much of a record to show us where he really stands.

All we can do is guess -- or believe what he says, despite his repeated (though not constant) misleading statements.

The comments to this entry are closed.